> > >I often wonder about this; IIRC, FF used to advertise itself as > > >"lightweight". Does it still do that? Was it ever accurate? > > > > It was lighter that the Mozilla suite that it "replaced". It was similar > > technology, but just a browser. It lacked the HTML editing abilities, the > > mail and news reader components, and a few other things. This > > significantly > > reduced load times and initial memory usage.
> > > > I still prefer konqueror, or chromium-browser if konqueror doesn't work on > > a > > certain site. Still, I find myself using FF + ABP on a few flash-ad-ridden > > sites. > > I have resisted installing konq, since I don't use KDE, and I have a > perhaps irrational resistance to installing that first KDE package that > will drag in all sorts of KDE libs and stuff. I've occasionally tried > chromium, but it never worked very well, and I couldn't be bothered to > investigate and figure out why. Strange. Google-Chrome is the thing that keeps me on the web now - the ONLY thing I miss in it is FF's handling of RSS feeds. But I'm not going back to that bloat to get them back. -- -- Frank -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101120192338.6f8f19e3.debianl...@videotron.ca
